CMT CAPT Press Release 071912

7/31/2019 CMT CAPT Press Release 071912

1/28

7/19/2012 3:39:29 PM

For Immediate Release: Thursday, July 19, 2012Contact: Jim Polites 860.713.6525

2012CMT,CAPTRESULTSSHOWSOMEINCREASES,WHILEGAPSIN

ACHIEVEMENTPERSIST

The Connecticut State Department of Education announced today that student performance on theConnecticut Mastery Test (CMT) increased in several grades and content areas from last year, continuing atrend of incremental improvement since the CMT baseline year of 2006. The most consistent and significantincreases in student performance occurred in reading and writing; student performance in math and scienceincreased in the early grades but declined in later grades.

The results of the 2012 Connecticut Academic Performance Test (CAPT) were mixed. While studentperformance increased in all content areas when compared to the CAPT baseline year of 2007, it decreasedin some areas when compared to last year. As compared to 2011, performance increased slightly in writing,remained relatively constant in science and reading, and decreased in mathematics.

Different metrics for measuring Connecticuts income-based achievement gap (using eligibility for free orreduced price meals as a proxy for poverty) paint a mixed picture of whether the gaps are narrowing.Examining changes in the percentage of students who perform at or above the Proficient and Goal levelsshows that in nearly every grade level and content area, the gaps between low- and higher-income students

have narrowed since 2006, further closing in the most recent year. Vertical scale score data, which measurescohort growth over time, shows the gap narrowing modestly in some content areas, but also reveals cases inwhich the gap is widening. Both metrics clearly reveal that the gap in achievement between low- andhigher-income students persists, with more than twice the percentage of higher-income students performingat or above the Goal level than lower-income students in many grade levels and content areas.

Stefan Pryor, Connecticut Commissioner ofEducation said: Were pleased to see that there are signs ofprogress in our schools. That saidwhile schools are moving more students into Proficient- and Goal-levelperformance, significant gaps in achievement continue between economically disadvantaged students andtheir peers. So there is reason for optimism regarding our systems ability to advance, as well as cause forcontinuing concern. We need to work together to implement the reforms and initiatives weve recentlylaunched in order to build on areas of progress and remedy the persistent problems in our schools.

Public Act 12-116 identifies Connecticuts thirty lowest performing districts as Alliance Districts and willprovide them with additional funding conditional upon clear plans for reform. While 2012 data shows thatAlliance Districts continue to perform far below other districts in all content areas and grade levels, many ofthese districts have made significant progress when compared to data from the previous year.

Complete state-, district- and school-level CMT and CAPT results are now available on the Online Reportswebsite (www.ctreports.com). Parents will receive notification of individual student performance results fortheir children in September.
http://www.ctreports.com/http://www.ctreports.com/http://www.ctreports.com/http://www.ctreports.com/


2/28

2

Both the CMT and the CAPT have five student performance levels for each content area tested: BelowBasic, Basic, Proficient, Goal, and Advanced. The CMT assesses approximately 250,000 students on theirapplication of skills and knowledge in the academic content areas of mathematics, reading, and writing inGrades 3 through 8, and science in Grades 5 and 8. This year marks the seventh administration of the CMT.The March 2006 administration of the CMT serves as a baseline year for examining changes in studentperformance because it was the first year that the Fourth Generation CMT was administered. The CMT alsohas vertical scales in mathematics and reading that enable valid measures of cohort growth in tested students

performance from 2006 to 2012.

The CAPT assesses over 40,000 students on their integration and application of skills in the academiccontent areas of mathematics, reading across the disciplines, writing across the disciplines, and science. Theresults from the March 2007 CAPT provide a baseline for examining student performance statewide over sixyears of CAPT administrations.

In May, the United States Department of Education approved Connecticuts waiver from certain provisionsof No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Connecticuts waiver introduces new metrics for measuring school andsubgroup performance that improve upon NCLB in a number of ways. First, the new accountability systemcaptures progress across all bands of performance. Under NCLB, the percentage of students who reachedProficiency was used to determine whether schools and districts were making Adequate Yearly Progress(AYP). This metric only captured progress across the Proficient threshold on the CMT and CAPT. The

metric did not capture progress made by students who are the furthest behind (performing at the Below Basiclevel and advancing to a level shy of Proficiency, within the Basic range) or students who had alreadyreached Proficiency and increased their performance to the Goal and Advanced levels.

The new accountability system introduces metrics that capture the progress of students across allperformance levels. This change will better enable schools to advance the growth of all of their students.Schools are encouraged to lift students who are furthest behind up to the Proficient level, students who areProficient to the higher Goal standard of college and career readiness, and the highest performing students tothe Advanced level. Besides counting performance across all bands, Connecticuts new accountabilitymetrics will also incorporate achievement in science and writing to build a more complete learning profile.Under NCLB, schools were held accountable only for student performance in math and reading.

This years CMT and CAPT reports, therefore, incorporate scale score growth analysis and focus onperformance across all bands. Future reports will more thoroughly draw upon this new methodology.


3/28

3

EXPLANATORY INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS

STUDENT PERFORMANCE ACROSS ALL PERFORMANCE BANDS

CMT


4/28

4


5/28

5

Connecticut students demonstrated improvement on the CMT in many grade levels and content areas bydecreasing the percentage of students performing in the lower bands on the CMT (Below Basic, Basic, andProficient) and increasing the percentage in the upper bands (Goal and Advanced). This upward trend ispresent when looking at CMT data from 2006, 2011, and 2012. When looking at the performance ofstudents over time, it is important to note that the CMT Modified Assessment System (CMT MAS) inreading and mathematics was piloted in 2009 and fully implemented in 2010. Therefore, when comparingscores after 2008, one should acknowledge that students selected for the CMT MAS in reading and

mathematics are not included among students taking the standard CMT in those subject areas.

Mathematics

Overall gains are apparent in most grades when 2012 data are compared with the baseline year of 2006; thepercentages of students performing at or above Proficient and at or above Goal have increased. Thepercentage of students scoring within the Below Basic, Basic, and Proficient levels decreased, whichcontributed to an increase in the percentage of students at the Advanced level. However, comparing 2011 to2012 data yields mixed results. In mathematics, Grades 5, 6, and 7 have seen decreases in the percentage ofstudents performing at or above Proficient and at or above Goal. Grades 3, 4, and 8 have increased thepercentage of students scoring at those levels.

Reading

Compared to the baseline year of 2006, there has been an increase in the percentages of students scoring at orabove Proficient and at or above Goal for all grade levels. The percentage of students scoring at BelowBasic decreased, and the percentage of students scoring at Advanced increased in all grades. From 2011 to2012, Grades 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 increased the percentage of students scoring at or above Proficient or at orabove Goal. Grade 6 saw a decrease in the percentage of students scoring at both of these performancelevels. When compared to 2011, the current year results show progress in the upper- and lower-mostperformance bands: the percentage of students scoring at Below Basic decreased in four of the six testedgrades, while the percentage of students performing at Advanced increased in five of the six grades.

Writing

Compared to the baseline year, most grades have shown improvement. Data showed a decline in thepercentage of students in all grades at the Below Basic level when compared to 2006, while the percentageof students at the Advanced level increased in all grades. Current year scores show progress in some gradeswhen compared to the 2011 results. The percentages of students scoring at or above Proficient or at or aboveGoal increased in Grades 3, 5, 7, and 8 between 2011 and 2012. Grade 6 showed mixed results, with anincrease in the percentage of students scoring at or above Goal, and a decrease in the percentage of studentsscoring at or above Proficient. Grade 4 showed a decrease in the percentages of students scoring at or aboveProficient and at or above Goal.

Science

The 2012 results show decreases in the percentage of students scoring within Below Basic, Basic, andProficient in all tested grades when compared to the CMT science baseline year of 2008. Increasedpercentages of students in all grades scoring at or above Goal and Advanced were also observed. Currentyear scores mostly show progress when compared to the 2011 results. For Grade 5, the percentage ofstudents scoring at Proficient stayed constant, while the percentage of students scoring at or above Goalincreased. The percentages of Grade 8 students scoring at or above Proficient increased, while thepercentage of students scoring at or above Goal decreased from 2011 to 2012. The percentage of studentsperforming at Below Basic decreased in both tested grades from 2011 to 2012 as well.


6/28

6

Table 1: CMT Performance, by Grade, Percent At or Above Goal and Percent At or Above Proficient

in Years 2006, 2011 and 2012

Mathematics Reading Writing Science

Grade Year

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

3 2006 78.3 56.3 69.2 54.4 81.7 61.1 NA NA

3 2011 84.3 63.2 73.9 58.3 81.1 61.1 NA NA

3 2012 85.8 66.8 74.5 59.2 83.2 62.7 NA NA

4 2006 80.3 58.8 71.8 57.8 84.2 62.8 NA NA

4 2011 85.1 67.2 74.7 62.5 85.4 65.5 NA NA

4 2012 85.8 68.2 78.3 64.1 83.7 65.3 NA NA

5 2006 80.8 60.7 72.8 60.9 85.3 65.0 NA NA

5 2011 87.6 72.7 75.1 61.4 88.0 66.8 82.4 60.2

5 2012 85.7 71.8 79.7 67.7 88.5 68.1 82.4 64.1

6 2006 79.8 58.6 75.4 63.6 82.7 62.2 NA NA

6 2011 88.5 71.6 86.5 76.0 86.1 65.3 NA NA

6 2012 87.2 69.5 84.8 74.2 84.9 67.5 NA NA

7 2006 77.8 57.0 76.4 66.7 80.9 60.0 NA NA

7 2011 87.2 68.7 85.7 77.8 79.8 58.9 NA NA

7 2012 86.7 68.3 87.4 79.9 83.9 65.6 NA NA

8 2006 78.9 58.3 76.6 66.7 81.9 62.4 NA NA

8 2011 86.0 66.8 83.4 74.7 81.6 64.8 75.9 63.3

8 2012 87.1 67.4 86.2 76.8 86.2 68.4 77.1 62.1

Vertical Scale Score Reporting

The CMT vertical scales are designed to measure change or growth in student achievement across grades(i.e., from Grade 3 to Grade 4, from Grade 4 to Grade 5, etc.) on tests that have different characteristics anditems, but have similar content. Vertical scales have been developed in the content areas of mathematics andreading. The vertical scales were constructed so that each score represents the same theoretical achievementlevel, whether derived from a Grade 3, Grade 4, Grade 5, Grade 6, Grade 7 or Grade 8 CMT scale score.Each grade-level CMT scale score (range 100 - 400) in mathematics or reading corresponds to a specificvalue on a common mathematics or reading vertical scale score (range 200 - 700). Thus, students indifferent grades, taking different tests for the same content area, can have the same vertical scale scorerepresenting the same level of achievement defined by the vertical scale.


7/28

7

Table 2: Grade 35 CMT Growth by Cohort

Cohort YearsCohort Grade

Levels

Mathematics Reading

Average Vertical

Scale ScoreGrowth

Average Vertical

Scale ScoreGrowth

Cohort 2006 3 450 423

2007 4 491 41 451 28

2008 5 522 31 476 24

Cohort 2007 3 452 423

2008 4 491 39 451 28

2009 5 526 35 481 30

Cohort 2008 3 452 423

2009 4 496 44 458 33

2010 5 530 34 480 22

Cohort 2009 3 455 427

2010 4 499 44 456 29

2011 5 531 32 479 23

Cohort 2010 3 456 428

2011 4 499 43 459 31

2012 5 529 30 485 26

Table 2 compares growth in student performance from Grades 3 through 5, in mathematics and reading, forfive cohorts of matched students who started testing in Grade 3 in 2006 through 2010. The cohort of Grade3 students that started in 2010 was tested in Grade 5 in 2012. The information in the table can be interpretedin the following manner for the Grade 3 cohort that began in 2010:

The average mathematics vertical scale score for the 2010 Grade 3 cohort of students was 456. Onaverage, this is higher than the average score for each of the previous four cohorts.

When this cohort was tested as Grade 4 students in 2011, the average mathematics vertical scalescore was 499, the same score as the previous Grade 4 and a higher score than the three cohorts priorto that one. The difference of 43 scale points represents the cohort growth in mathematics betweenGrade 3 and Grade 4.

When the same cohort was tested in mathematics in 2012, the average vertical scale score was 529.The difference of 30 scale points represents the average growth in the students performancebetween Grades 4 and 5.

Similar comparisons can be made about the growth of students in Grades 3 through 5 in reading.

Table 3 compares the growth in student performance from Grades 6 through 8 in mathematics and readingfor five cohorts of matched students who were tested in Grade 6 in 2006 through 2010, and were tested in

Grade 8 in 2008 through 2012.


8/28

8

Table 3: Grade 68 CMT Growth by Cohort

Cohort YearsCohort Grade

Level

Mathematics Reading

Average Vertical

Scale ScoreGrowth

Average Vertical

Scale ScoreGrowth

Cohort 2006 6 532 490

2007 7 554 22 506 16

2008 8 570 16 516 10Cohort 2007 6 540 491

2008 7 559 19 513 22

2009 8 575 16 520 7

Cohort 2008 6 543 496

2009 7 563 20 518 22

2010 8 580 17 529 11

Cohort 2009 6 547 499

2010 7 568 21 524 25

2011 8 579 11 531 7

Cohort 2010 6 550 507

2011 7 567 17 524 17

2012 8 580 13 536 12

For these cohorts, reading is used to illustrate how the vertical scale data can be interpreted. The cohort of

Grade 6 students that was started in 2010 was tested as Grade 8 students in 2012. The information in the

table for reading can be interpreted in the following manner for the Grade 6 cohort that began in 2010:

The average reading vertical scale score for the 2010 Grade 6 cohort was 507. This is higher thanthe average scores for each of the four previous cohorts, with each cohort scoring higher than the onebefore.

In 2011, when this cohort was tested in reading as Grade 7 students, its average vertical scale scorewas 524, reflecting an overall within cohort growth of 17 scale score points.

For the same cohort, when tested in reading as Grade 8 students in 2012, its average vertical scorewas 536. This was higher than each of the previous Grade 8 cohorts scale scores, registering anaverage growth of 12 within cohort scale score points between Grade 7 and Grade 8.


9/28

9

CAPT


10/28

10

Connecticut students demonstrated improvement on the CAPT in most content areas compared to thebaseline year of 2007. However, comparing 2011 data with 2012 data shows mixed results. When lookingat the performance of students over time, it is important to note that the CAPT Modified Assessment System(CAPT MAS) in reading and mathematics was piloted in 2009 and fully implemented in 2010. Therefore,when comparing scores after 2008, one should acknowledge that students selected for the CAPT MAS inreading and mathematics are not included among students taking the standard CAPT in those subject areas.

Mathematics

The 2012 results for mathematics show a moderate increase in the percentage of students statewide at orabove Proficient and, and an even greater increase in the percentage of students at or above Goal from the2007 baseline year. However, more students performed at or above Proficiency in 2011 than in 2012. Therewas also a slight decrease from 2011 to 2012 in the percentage of students performing at or above Goal, butthat percentage was fairly constant. An increase in the percentage of students at Below Basic and Advancedare seen compared to last year.

Science

Overall progress from the 2007 baseline year in science results is mixed. The percentage of students at orabove Proficient has decreased since 2007, but the percentage of students scoring at or above Goal has seen a

moderate increase from the baseline year. Similarly, the percentage of students scoring at or aboveProficient decreased from 2011 to 2012, while the percentage of students scoring at or above Goal increasedfrom 2011 to 2012. There was a small decrease in the percentage of students at the Advanced level from2011 to 2012 and the percentage of students scoring Below Basic has increased since 2011.

Reading across the Disciplines

There have been overall gains for reading across the disciplines in both the percentage of students scoring ator above Proficient and the percentage of students at or above Goal when 2012 data are compared to thebaseline data from 2007. Progress from 2011 to 2012 in reading across the disciplines is mixed. There wasa decrease in the percentage of students at or above Proficient. However, there was an increase in thepercentage of students scoring at or above Goal from 2011 to 2012. The percentage of students at Below

Basic has increased from 2011 to 2012.

Writing across the Disciplines

There have been strong overall gains in writing across the disciplines in both the percentage of students at orabove Proficient and the percentage of students at or above Goal. Also, the percentage of students at theBelow Basic level has steadily decreased since 2007, while the percentage of students at the Advanced levelhas increased strongly from 2007 to 2012. Increases from 2011 to 2012 continue to reflect this upwardtrend. The percentage of students at or above Proficient rose slightly from last year, and the percentage ofstudents at or above Goal showed a moderate increase from 2011 to 2012.

Table 4: 2007-2012 CAPT Performance for Percent At/Above Proficient and At/Above Goal

Mathematics ScienceReading Across the

DisciplinesWriting Across the

Disciplines

Year

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

2007 77.3 45.3 81.4 44.5 79.7 45.5 82.3 53.0

2008 79.7 50.2 80.5 46.5 82.7 45.5 88.2 57.9

2009 78.4 48.0 78.4 43.0 81.8 47.5 86.5 55.0

2010 78.8 48.9 81.5 45.5 82.9 45.9 86.2 59.6

2011 80.3 49.6 81.7 47.2 81.9 44.8 88.6 61.3

2012 78.8 49.3 80.2 47.3 80.9 47.5 88.8 63.1


11/28

11

SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE AND THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP

Eligibility for Free- or Reduced-Price Meals

The 2012 CMT and CAPT results show wide income-achievement gaps, with more than twice thepercentage of higher-income students performing at or above Goal than lower income students in manygrade levels and content areas. This analysis of the income-based achievement gap uses data on whether a

student is eligible to receive free or reduced priced lunch as proxy for poverty.

Different metrics paint a complex picture of how the gap in achievement has changed over time. Examiningchanges in the percentage of students who perform at or above Proficient and Goal shows that in virtuallyevery grade level and content area, economically disadvantaged students have made more significant gainsbetween 2006 and 2012 compared to their peers, which has narrowed the achievement gap for this subgroupof students. However, vertical scale score data, which measures cohort growth over time, shows that the gapbetween students in Grade 3 and Grade 8 persists, and in some cases, widens from year to year.

Achievement Gap Trends

One way to measure whether Connecticut has made progress in narrowing the achievement gap between

economically disadvantaged students and their peers is to compare the percentage of students performing ator above Proficient or Goal in a particular grade from one year to the next. Tables 8, 9, and 10 belowprovide this information for the years 2006, 2011, and 2012 in Grades 3, 8, and 10.

These data show that between 2006 and 2012, students who are eligible for free- or reduced-price mealsmade larger gains on the CMT in the percentage of students who score at or above Goal level than studentswho are not eligible for free- or reduced-price meals. This is true in all content areas and in most grades.For example, in reading, students who are eligible for free- or reduced price-meals made larger gains in allgrades when compared to students who are not eligible for free- or reduced-price meals. Performance trendsfrom 2011 to 2012 demonstrate similar gains: free- or reduced-price meal students made larger gains in thepercentage at or above Goal in four of the six grades in reading and writing when compared with studentswho are not eligible for free- or reduced-price meals.

On the CAPT, students who are eligible to receive free- or reduced-price meals have made moderateprogress in some content areas and levels since 2007. At the Proficient level for math and reading, studentseligible for free- or reduced-price meals have narrowed the gap with their peers from higher-income familiessince 2007. However, for those content areas, the gap has remained constant or widened when compared to2011. In writing, students from low-income families have made large gains when compared to their peers ina higher-income group. The gap in writing scores at the Proficient level has decreased steadily, from 27.8percent in 2007 to 18.9 percent in 2012. At the Goal level, the income achievement gap has mostly remainedconstant, and, in some instances, the gap has increased slightly when compared to the CAPT baseline of2007. For example, while the difference between students from low-income families and their peers fromhigher-income families scoring at the Goal level in reading decreased slightly from 2011 to 2012, the gap hasincreased from 37.5 percent in 2007 to 38.7 percent in 2012.


12/28

12

Table 5: Grade 3 CMT Free- or Reduced-Price Meal Comparison

Mathematics Reading Writing

Subgroup Year

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

Free/Reduced-

Price Meals

2006 58.1 30.8 42.5 24.5 64.2 36.4

2011 69.1 40.7 53.5 34.0 66.4 39.8

2012 71.6 44.1 54.3 35.2 69.8 42.0

Full Price Meals

2006 87.3 67.7 81.0 67.6 89.3 71.7

2011 92.9 76.0 85.4 72.0 89.6 73.5

2012 94.1 79.9 86.1 73.1 91.3 75.2


Difference by

Economic Status

Year

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

2006 29.2 36.9 38.5 43.1 25.1 35.3

2011 23.8 35.3 31.9 38.0 23.2 33.7

2012 22.5 35.8 31.8 37.9 21.5 33.2

Table 6: Grade 8 CMT Free- or Reduced-Price Meal Comparison


Subgroup Year

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

Free/Reduced-

Price Meals

2006 54.8 26.5 51.8 37.6 63.5 35.3 NA NA

2011 69 39.3 65.4 51.2 63.5 38.7 51.6 34.7

2012 71.5 40.6 70.4 54.8 72.2 44.4 54.1 34.8

Full Price Meals

2006 87.9 70.2 85.9 77.6 88.8 72.5 NA NA

2011 94.2 80.2 92.1 86.1 90.7 78 88.3 77.9

2012 94.8 80.7 94 87.7 93.5 80.9 89.1 76.4


Difference by

Economic Status

Year

%

At/Above

Proficient

%

At/Above

Goal

%

At/Above

Proficient

%

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

2006 33.1 43.7 34.1 40.0 25.3 37.2 NA NA

2011 25.2 40.9 26.7 34.9 27.2 39.3 36.7 43.2

2012 23.3 40.1 23.6 32.9 21.3 36.5 35.0 41.6


13/28

13

Table 7: CAPT Free- or Reduced-Price Meal Comparison


Subgroup Year

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

F/R Meals

2007 48.8 14.4 54.9 16.8 60.9 23.4 55 13.7

2008 53.4 17.9 60.4 16.2 72.2 27.3 53.2 15.8

2009 51.9 17 59.8 19.1 69.2 25.2 50.4 13.5

2010 54.1 18.6 62.4 17.5 69.4 31.5 57.3 16.4

2011 57.5 19.9 61.7 16.9 75.1 33.7 59.2 18.2

2012 55.4 20.2 60.8 20.3 75.6 36.4 56.6 18.9

Full-Price Meals

2007 85.9 54.7 87.3 54.3 88.7 61.9 89.5 53.9

2008 88.3 60.8 90 55.2 93.4 68 89.5 56.6

2009 87.4 58.5 89.3 57.1 92.4 65.3 88 53.2

2010 88.1 60.2 90.6 56.6 92.6 70.3 90.9 56.7

2011 89.4 61.5 90 55.9 94.1 72.6 91 59.22012 88.5 61.5 89.3 59 94.5 74.6 90.5 59.6


Difference by

Economic Status

Year

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

2007 37.1 40.3 32.4 37.5 27.8 38.5 34.5 40.2

2008 34.9 42.9 29.6 39.0 21.2 40.7 36.3 40.8

2009 35.5 41.5 29.5 38.0 23.2 40.1 37.6 39.72010 34.0 41.6 28.2 39.1 23.2 38.8 33.6 40.3

2011 31.9 41.6 28.3 39.0 19.0 38.9 31.8 41.0

2012 33.1 41.3 28.5 38.7 18.9 38.2 33.9 40.7

Achievement Gap Trends based on Vertical Scale Cohort Growth

Using data on the eligibility for a student to receive a free- or reduced-price lunch as a proxy for povertyreveals a persistent achievement gap between low-poverty and high-poverty students in the state. One wayto assess this gap is to examine the differences between the mean vertical scale scores of members of each ofthese groups and to follow the same groups of students (or cohort) through several years. Because vertical

scale scores have been adjusted, valid comparisons can be made between grade levels: a difference of 30vertical scale points in Grade 3 is equivalent to a difference of 30 vertical scale points in Grade 8. Verticalscale scores are available in the content areas of mathematics and reading for all CMT grades. Bycomparing how far apart these groups performed when they were in Grade 3, and each year through Grade 8,performance for the same group of students can be tracked through all six of the grades in which they tookthe CMT.


14/28

14

Mathematics

Vertical scale scores show that the income-based achievement gap between high- and low-poverty studentsin mathematics widened as the cohort progressed from grade 3 to grade 8. For the students who were inGrade 3 in 2007, and matriculated through to Grade 8 in 2012, the gap between low- and higher-incomestudents began as a 33 point difference in Grade 3, and increased to a 45 point difference in Grade 8.

Table 8: Mathematics CMT Scale Scores for Cohort beginning in 2007

Year Grade Low Poverty High Poverty Difference

2007 3 463 430 33

2008 4 505 466 39

2009 5 539 502 37

2010 6 565 524 41

2011 7 583 540 43

2012 8 597 552 45

Reading

Vertical scale scores show that the income-based achievement gap between high- and low-poverty studentsin reading was persistent but narrowed slightly as the cohort progressed from Grade 3 to Grade 8. For thelow- and high-poverty groups, the students who were in Grade 3 in 2007 and matriculated through to Grade8 in 2012 received the following scale scores in reading.

At/Above Goal

Proficient

Basic

Below Basic


15/28

15

Table 9: Reading CMT Scale Scores for Cohort beginning in 2007

Year Grade Low Poverty High Poverty Difference

2007 3 438 393 45

2008 4 467 421 46

2009 5 495 454 41

2010 6 523 480 43

2011 7 540 497 43

2012 8 551 510 41

The difference measured on the vertical scale begins at 45 in Grade 3, and decreases to 41 in Grade 8. Onbalance, the achievement gap between the high- and low-poverty groups is constant for this cohort ofstudents in reading.

English Language Learners

When looking at trends from 2006 to 2012, English Language Learners (ELL) continue to performsignificantly lower than students who are non-ELL. Additionally, the gap between English LanguageLearners and other students has widened significantly over this period. The ELL subgroup made smallergains in the percentage of students scoring at or above Proficient and at or above Goal than students who arenon-ELL students. This is true in all content areas and all grades. For example, in mathematics in Grade 3,

At/Above Goal

Proficient

Basic

Below Basic


16/28

16

the percentage of ELL students who scored at or above Goal increased by only 2.8 percent since 2006, whilenon-ELL students scores increased by 10.7 percent.

Performance trends from 2011 to 2012 demonstrate mixed results when looking at the change in percentageof students scoring at or above Proficient and Goal. In most instances, the increase in the percentage ofstudents scoring at or above Proficient and at or above Goal was lower for ELL students than for otherstudents. However, in two grades in math, ELL students increased their percentage at or above Goal by a

margin that was greater than non-ELL students.

Table 10: CMT Grade 3 Comparison: ELL Non-ELL


Subgroup Year

percent

At/Above

Prof

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Prof

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/ Above

Prof

Percent

At/Above

Goal

ELL

2006 52.7 27.1 30.5 15.2 55.3 29.1

2011 60.3 31.0 31.3 14.2 53.1 24.9

2012 58.4 29.9 29.9 14.4 56.0 24.9

Non-ELL

2006 80.1 58.4 71.9 57.1 83.5 63.2

2011 85.9 65.4 76.7 61.2 83.0 63.5

2012 87.5 69.1 77.2 62.0 85.0 65.2

Table 11: CMT Grade 8 Comparison: ELL Non-ELL


ELL

Year

percent

At/Above

Prof

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Prof

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Prof

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Prof

percent

At/Above

Goal

2006 40.2 16.4 24.3 14.7 41.3 16.8 NA NA

2011 37.5 13.3 22.4 10.7 29.2 9.2 15.1 6.5

2012 37.0 12.3 23.0 8.8 34.9 9.6 14.7 4.4

Non-ELL

2006 80.3 59.8 78.5 68.6 83.3 64.0 NA NA

2011 87.8 68.8 85.6 77.0 83.6 66.9 78.3 65.6

2012 88.7 69.1 88.1 78.9 88.0 70.4 79.3 64.1


17/28

17

Table 12: CAPT Comparison: ELL Non-ELL

Mathematics Science Reading Writing

Subgroup Year

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

ELL

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

34.1

35.3

35.8

37.9

31.0

27.7

9.4

8.4

9.0

9.0

5.8

6.5

32.6

25.1

23.8

28.9

22.8

20.0

5.4

3.9

2.7

3.6

3.0

2.9

37.7

38.0

35.1

42.0

33.7

33.5

7.8

6.0

6.6

7.3

4.2

6.2

41.3

46.9

46.7

44.0

48.1

47.2

8.9

8.8

8.1

11.0

9.4

10.1

Non-

ELL

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

78.6

81.1

79.8

80.2

82.0

80.5

46.5

51.6

49.2

50.2

51.1

50.7

83.0

82.3

80.1

83.4

83.8

82.4

45.8

47.9

44.2

47.0

48.8

48.9

81.0

84.0

83.2

84.3

83.5

82.4

46.7

46.7

48.7

47.2

46.1

48.8

83.5

89.5

87.7

87.7

90.0

90.3

54.4

59.5

56.5

61.2

63.1

64.9

Students by Ethnicity/Race

Beginning in 2011, Ethnicity/Race reporting changed. As a result of new United States Department ofEducation guidance, students are now categorized in one of the following seven groups: Hispanic/Latino,American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other PacificIslander, White, and Two or More Ethnicity/Races. For reporting purposes, students are classified asHispanic/Latino, regardless of their race. Students who are not Hispanic/Latino are placed in one of theEthnicity/Race categories, unless they belong to the Two or More Ethnicity/Race categories.

Racial Subgroup Student Performance on the CMT

The 2011 and 2012 CMT results for the seven ethnicity/race categories are shown below in Table 16. Otherthan Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander students, these data show an increase in performance in mostcontent areas for all students of all Ethnicity/Race categories for Grades 3 and 8. Performance gaps persist,however, with black and Hispanic students generally scoring at lower levels than students of other races andethnicities.

The 2011 and 2012 results show that black and Hispanic students scored significantly lower than whitestudents in all content areas. However, in Grades 3 and 8 reading and writing, the percentage gain in blackstudents scoring at or above the Goal level was larger than white students.


18/28

18

Table 13: CMT Performance Data by Ethnicity/Race for Grades 3 and 8: 2011 and 2012


Grade Ethnicity/Race Year percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

3 Hispanic/Latino 2011 69.6 41.1 53.1 33.7 66.0 40.0 N/A N/A

2012 72.2 44.8 53.6 34.6 70.3 42.3 N/A N/AAmerican Indian or

Alaskan Native2011 80.2 55.7 69.8 39.6 78.0 54.1 N/A N/A

2012 80.8 52.5 67.0 53.0 80.5 57.7 N/A N/A

Black or African

American2011 66.5 36.4 53.9 33.7 68.3 42.1 N/A N/A

2012 67.2 38.3 54.1 34.1 70.2 42.3 N/A N/A

Asian 2011 95.0 82.4 83.0 70.3 92.6 78.0 N/A N/A

2012 94.0 83.0 84.4 72.7 92.6 78.9 N/A N/A

Native Hawaiian or

Other Pacific Islander2011 88.9 72.2 83.3 77.8 84.2 84.2 N/A N/A

2012 92.3 88.5 88.9 77.8 89.3 67.9 N/A N/A

White 2011 91.5 73.8 83.5 69.8 87.5 70.2 N/A N/A

2012 93.2 78.1 84.3 70.9 89.4 72.3 N/A N/A

Two or More 2011 84.1 65.8 74.7 60.8 80.8 62.0 N/A N/A

2012 86.9 67.1 76.0 61.8 84.1 62.8 N/A N/A

8 Hispanic/Latino 2011 67.7 39.2 63.6 49.9 62.1 38.1 50.4 33.5

2012 70.3 40.4 68.8 53.6 71.4 44.0 52.8 33.9

American Indian or

Alaskan Native2011 86.8 55.4 81.7 65.8 74.8 57.3 71.2 53.8

2012 86.6 60.5 82.5 73.3 83.7 65.0 75.6 55.3

Black or African

American2011 67.7 37.0 66.2 51.4 64.9 39.5 49.6 31.9

2012 70.1 37.4 71.1 54.5 74.0 44.4 52.0 31.0

Asian 2011 95.6 85.3 91.8 86.7 91.9 80.1 87.3 78.1

2012 95.1 84.8 91.9 86.3 93.6 82.8 88.1 76.4

Native Hawaiian or

Other Pacific Islander2011 90.0 50.0 90.0 60.0 90.0 70.0 70.0 70.0

2012 71.0 45.2 65.5 58.6 75.0 56.3 54.3 37.1

White 2011 93.7 78.8 91.3 84.9 89.6 76.2 87.5 76.9

2012 94.7 79.7 93.6 87.1 92.6 79.5 88.6 75.9

Two or More 2011 87.0 61.6 83.0 74.2 80.8 64.3 74.8 60.8

2012 85.6 65.6 85.8 76.4 86.6 68.3 76.1 59.8


19/28

19

Racial Subgroup Student Performance on the Connecticut Academic Performance Test

The 2011 and 2012 CAPT results for the seven Ethnicity/Race categories are shown below in Table 17. Theresults for racial and ethnic subgroups are mixed, with increases in the percent at or above Goal inmathematics, reading, and writing for black students and Hispanic students. Decreases were seen in thepercent at or above Proficient in mathematics and science for these subgroups.

Table 14: CAPT Performance Data by Ethnicity/Race for from 2011 and 2012

Mathematics Science Reading Writing

Subgroup Year

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

percent

At/Above

Proficient

percent

At/Above

Goal

Black or African

American

2011

2012

51.8

50.4

14.6

15.6

57.6

53.5

15.2

15.1

58.8

59.7

13.8

18.7

75.4

76.8

31.6

35.9

Hispanic/

Latino

2011

2012

59.5

56.3

20.2

20.6

58.7

56.6

18.9

19.6

64.8

62.5

19.0

21.7

75.3

76.4

36.3

37.4

White2011

2012

89.9

89.1

62.1

61.8

91.5

91.1

59.4

60.0

89.9

89.1

55.8

58.6

93.9

94.1

72.1

74.2

Asian2011

2012

89.4

89.6

65.5

66.3

87.5

88.6

60.1

59.9

89.2

88.6

58.3

62.5

93.9

93.8

75.5

76.8American Indian

or AK Native

2011

2012

68.4

76.1

25.3

33.6

68.5

72.6

26.1

38.5

67.0

70.9

20.3

33.6

74.6

85.3

38.9

52.9

Native Hawaiian

or Other Pac. Isl.

2011

2012

76.7

60.0

33.3

40.0

75.0

65.6

28.1

40.6

76.7

62.1

36.7

31.0

86.7

69.7

56.7

39.4

Two or More

Ethnicities/Races

2011

2012

79.1

69.3

46.7

37.8

80.5

72.5

46.3

36.3

81.5

76.2

41.3

37.1

91.2

83.3

60.4

52.7

STATE INITIATIVES

Because Connecticuts new accountability system captures increases in student achievement across all fiv eperformance bands, the Department of Education will be better able to identify which schools have the

highest concentrations of low performing students and more accurately assess the progress schools aremaking. NCLB identified, and imposed sanctions on, all schools that missed AYP. Connecticuts waiverlifts these sanctions and instead, with initiatives established in Public Act 12-116,An Act ConcerningEducational Reform, provides new mechanisms for low performing districts and schools to get the resourcesand support they need to improve student achievement.

Alliance Districts

Public Act 12-116 authorized the State Department to identify Connecticuts 30 lowest performing districtsas Alliance Districts. These districts will receive an additional $39.5 million in Education Cost Sharingfunding, conditional upon clear plans for reform. In addition, the Act authorizes intensive interventions inConnecticuts lowest performing schools over the next three years. The Commissioners Networkisdesigned to serve as a vehicle for the provision of support in and engagement with such individual low

performing schools.

While some Alliance Districts have shown progress over the past six years, their performance still lags farbehind the state. In many tested grades and content areas the majority of students in these districts are notperforming at the Goal level. The graphs on the following pages illustrate the difference in performancebetween Alliance Districts and non-Alliance Districts. Grades 5 and 8 were chosen as examples because thescience CMT and CAPT are only taken in those grades.


20/28

20

Despite some gains, the performance gap for grades 5, 8, and 10 between Alliance Districts and non-Alliancedistricts remains wide.

Between 2011 and 2012, 29 Alliance Districts have increased the percentage of students in Grade 5performing at or above the Proficient level in reading, and 27 Alliance Districts have increased thepercentage of Grade 5 students performing at or above the Goal level in that content area. However, 23Alliance Districts experienced decreases in the percentage of Grade 5 students performing at or above the

Proficiency level for Grade 5 math. In Grade 5 science, the results are mixed: about half of AllianceDistricts saw increases in the performance of their students at or above the Proficient level. Students fromAlliance Districts, which educate about one-third of Connecticuts students, make up 70 percent of the Grade5 students who score Below Basic in mathematics and are overly represented at the Basic and Below Basiclevels for reading and science.

In Grade 8, 21 Alliance Districts increased the percentage of students scoring at or above the Proficiencylevel for math, 27 districts increased the percentage in reading, and 27 increased the percentage in science.Grade 8 science data showed that 15 Alliance Districts increased the percentage of students scoring at orabove the Goal level since 2011. While this improvement should be recognized, it is important to considerthat fewer than 40 percent of students in Alliance Districts achieve at this level while the statewide average is62.1 percent.

Between 2011 and 2012, 18 Alliance Districts decreased the percentage of Grade 10 students scoring at orabove Proficient for math while 20 districts increased the percentage of students performing at or aboveGoal. Similar trends can be found in reading and writing. Grade 10 reading results in 13 Alliance districtsshow that the percentage of students scoring at or above Proficient decreased, while the percentage ofstudents scoring at or above Goal increased. In Grade 10 writing, 14 Alliance Districts increased thepercentage of students performing at or above Proficiency, while 18 Alliance Districts increased thepercentage of students performing at or above Goal. Despite student performance increases in some AllianceDistricts for Grade 10, the percentage of students in Alliance District schools continue to lag behind theirpeers in average performance.

The graphs on the following pages compare Alliance District Grade 5 and Grade 8 data for all four CMT

content areas with data from all non-Alliance Districts in the state for the same grades and content areas intwo different ways. The first set of graphs compares 2012 CMT data for Alliance Districts to non-AllianceDistricts. The second set uses vertical scale scores to compare the cohort growth over time for students in

Alliance Districts to students in non-Alliance Districts.


21/28

21


22/28

22


23/28

23

Vertical Scale Growth Math: Alliance Districts vs. Non-Alliance Districts

Table 15: Alliance and Non-Alliance District Vertical Scale Scores

Math

Grade Alliance Rest of State Difference

3 438 462 -24

4 475 503 -28

5 510 538 -28

6 530 563 -33

7 547 582 -35

8 557 596 -39

Despite increases in vertical scale scores over grade levels in Alliance Districts, a gap remainsand widensas grade levels progressbetween Alliance Districts vertical scale growth and that of the rest of the state inmathematics. At Grade 3, there is a 24 point vertical scale score difference between Alliance Districts andthe rest of the state in mathematics; this difference widens to 39 points by Grade 8.

Below Basic

Proficient

Basic

At/Above Goal


24/28

24

Vertical Scale Growth Reading: Alliance Districts vs. Non-Alliance Districts

Table 16: Alliance and Non-Alliance District Vertical Scale Scores

Reading

Grade Alliance Rest of State Difference

3 403 437 -34

4 431 465 -34

5 463 493 -30

6 488 521 -33

7 504 538 -34

8 517 550 -33

The gap in vertical scale growth in reading between Alliance Districts and the rest of the state remainsrelatively constant at around 33 points.

At/Above Goal

Proficient

Basic

Below Basic


25/28

25

Grade 3 Reading

Public Act 12-116 establishes a number of programs and interventions aimed at increasing student literacy inthe early grades. Students from low-income families (as measured by eligibility for free and reduced-pricemeals) are reading far below their peers by the third grade. The gap in students scoring at Proficient, betweenlow-income students in Grade 3 and other students in Grade 3, has closed since 2006, though it is still wide(42.5 percent vs. 81percent in 2006; 54.3 percent vs. 86.1 percent in 2012). Students from low-income

families continue to perform at or above the Goal level on the Grade 3 Reading CMT at a rate that is lessthan half that of their higher-income peers (24.5 percent vs. 67.6 percent in 2006; 35.2 percent vs. 73.1percent in 2012).

Comparing 2011 to 2012 data reveals identical increases in the percent of students scoring at the Proficientlevel for students from both low and high income families. The percent of Students scoring at the proficientlevel from low-income families increased .7 percent (53.6% to 54.3%) and the percent of students fromhigher-income families scoring at the Proficient level also increased by .7% (85.4% to 86.1%).

Nearly one-quarter of Grade 3 students statewide have reached the Advanced level in reading in 2012. Thispercentage has increased from 16.7 percent in 2006 to 23.5 percent in 2012. However, these gains have beenmade disproportionately in non-Alliance Districts. The Alliance Districts tested about 15,300 Grade 3students on the standard CMT reading assessment but only about 1,800 students reached the Advanced level

or less than 12 percent.

Table 17: Grade 3 CMT Reading Comparison for Free- or Reduced- Price Meals and Full Price

Meals: 2006, 2011, and 2012

Reading

Subgroup Year

Percent At

or Above

Proficient

Percent At

or Above

Goal

Free/Reduced-Price

Meals

2006 42.5 24.5

2011 53.5 34.0

2012 54.3 35.2

Full Price Meals

2006 81.0 67.6

2011 85.4 72.0

2012 86.1 73.1


26/28

26

Students with Disabilities

The CMT and CAPT Modified Assessment System (CMT MAS & CAPT MAS)

In March 2012, the CAPT and CMT Modified Assessment System (MAS) were administered for the thirdtime. The MAS is one of two United States Department of Education approved alternate assessments used inConnecticut. It is an alternate test for mathematics and reading only and is available for identified studentswith disabilities for whom the standard CAPT or CMT is inappropriate. Students are identified to take theMAS through multiple valid measures. They are students who, because of their disabilities, would beunlikely to achieve a Proficient score on the standard test, but who might be better able to demonstrate theircapabilities on the modified test. A student with disabilities may qualify for this alternate test in one or bothof the reading or math subject areas. These students must also take the standard grade-level writing andscience tests. There are three standards that have been established for performance on the MAS: Basic,Proficient, and Goal.

Student Performance on the Grades 3 and 8 Modified Assessment System (CMT MAS)

Of the 2012 total tested CMT population, 4.3 percent participated in the MAS reading test and 3.5 percent

participated in the MAS mathematics test.

Table 18 provides information about the number of students who were administered the CMT MASmathematics and reading assessment in 2010 (the baseline year for the MAS) through 2012, and thepercentage scoring at the Proficient and Goal levels each year. The percentage of students meetingProficient and Goal levels of performance on the MAS in Grade 3 mathematics and Grade 8 mathematics islower in 2012 than in 2010. However, in reading, the MAS performance was higher in 2012 than in 2010 inboth grades across both performance standards.

Student Performance on the Grade 10 CAPT Modified Assessment System (CAPT MAS)

Of the 2012 total tested CAPT population, 2.4 percent participated in the MAS reading test and 2.6 percentparticipated in the MAS math test. Students may be assessed with the reading and/or mathematics CAPT

MAS. Modifications made to the standard version of the CAPT to create the CAPT MAS included changesto question formats, more accessible presentation of text and graphics, embedded graphic organizers,additional formulas and charts, and scaffolding of multi-step problems.

In 2012, 995 students participated in the CAPT MAS mathematics and 967 students participated in theCAPT MAS reading. Table 19 shows the performance of students on the CAPT MAS from 2010 to 2012.The results show declines over the three-year period in student performance in MAS mathematics with 29.8percent at or above Proficient and 13.3 percent at or above Goal in 2012. Slight declines were also seen inMAS reading when compared to 2011, although 2012 results show small increases over the baseline year of2010.

Please note that the increases in the number of MAS test takers between the years 2011 and 2012 are not

correlated with increases in the percentage of students at or above Proficiency or the percentage of studentsat or above Goal on the MAS. This subject remains an area of inquiry for the State Department ofEducation.


27/28

27

Table 18: Student Performance on CMT and CAPT MAS

Cohort

Years

Cohort

Grade

Levels

Mathematics - State Reading - State

Number

TestedDiff.

% At/Above

ProficiencyDiff.

%

At/Above

Goal

Diff.Number

TestedDiff.

% At/Above

ProficiencyDiff.

%

At/Above

Goal

Diff.

20113

1050 65.9 37.3 1410 48.8 30.9

2012 1203 153 66.3 0.4 36.3 -1 1591 181 47.6 -1.2 30.9 0

20114

1374 59 31.3 1848 63.4 32

2012 1378 4 63.5 4.5 32 0.7 1851 3 66.7 -1.2 33.7 1.7

20115

1431 61.6 29 1777 65 33.4

2012 1590 159 59.9 -1.7 25.1 -3.9 2006 229 64.1 -0.9 32 -1.4

20116

1538 62.9 31.3 1876 49.5 12.6

2012 1555 17 60.3 -2.6 28.5 -2.8 1834 -42 47.9 -1.6 14.2 1.6

20117

1411 38.1 17.8 1610 58.1 27.8

2012 1570 159 36.2 -1.9 15.2 -2.6 1811 201 59.5 1.4 28 0.2

20118

1320 38.8 15 1425 63.8 40.1

2012 1404 84 36.6 -2.2 12.5 -2.5 1525 100 67.9 4.1 44.5 4.4

2011 10 914 33.4 15.4 941 61.3 38.42012 995 81 29.8 -3.6 13.3 -2.1 967 26 61.2 -0.1 38.2 -0.2

The CMT and CAPT Skills Checklist

The second alternate assessment in Connecticuts assessment system is the Skills Checklist, which isdesigned for students with significant cognitive disabilities at each tested grade. The Skills Checklist iscompleted by the students primary special education teacher. Judgments are made by the teacher based onobservations and interactions with students throughout the year. Three performance standards have alsobeen set for the Skills Checklist: Basic, Proficient, and Independent.

Student Performance on the Grades 3 and 8 CMT Skills Checklist

This year approximately 1.3 percent of the total tested population in Grades 3 through 8 were administeredthe CMT Skills Checklist. Table 20 lists the percentage of Skills Checklist examinees from 2006, 2011, and2012 performing within each of the higher two levels at Grade 3 and Grade 8.

Table 19: CMT Skills Checklist Results

YearNumber

TestedGrade

Mathematics Reading Communication Science

percent

Within

Proficient

Level

percent

Within

Independent

Level

percent

Within

Proficient

Level

percent

Within

Independent

Level

percent

Within

Proficient

Level

percent

Within

Independent

Level

percent

within

Proficient

Level

percent

Within

Independent

Level

2006 344 3 20.3 7.0 7.8 1.7 8.1 2.0 NA NA

2011 551 23.0 24.0 21.1 2.5 26.1 4.4 NA NA

2012 556 24.5 24.5 21.4 4.9 26.4 6.3 NA NA

2006 367 8 6.8 3.8 10.9 2.2 16.9 3.8 * *

2011 495 18.6 8.3 19.2 8.1 27.3 9.7 43.0 20.0

2012 556 24.5 7.9 21.4 7.0 27.2 10.3 45.9 17.8

*Science was not tested in 2006


28/28

Student Performance on the Grade 10 CAPT Skills Checklist

This year, approximately 1.3 percent of the total tested population of Grade 10 students were assessed withthe CAPT Skills Checklist. Table 21 summarizes the CAPT Skills Checklist results from 2007 through2012. The results show decreases across all four content areas when compared to 2011, although the generaltrend is upward from the baseline years of 2007 (mathematics, reading and communication) and 2008(science).

Table 20: 2007-2012 CAPT Skills Checklist Performance Percent At/Above Proficient

Year

Number

Tested

Mathematics

percent At/Above

Proficient

Reading

percent At/Above

Proficient

Communication

percent At/Above

Proficient

Science

percent At/Above

Proficient

2007 433 8.1 13.4 30.3 *

2008 450 12.2 17.8 38.5 44.9

2009 447 11.0 16.8 37.6 45.0

2010 506 16.0 21.2 39.8 48.6

2011 495 16.3 24.3 43.8 50.9

2012 552 15.0 20.9 40.2 46.6

* Science was not tested on the CAPT Skills Checklist in 2007.

CMT CAPT Press Release 071912

Documents

Transcript of CMT CAPT Press Release 071912